Good all-around lens for use with Nikon D5300

[JohnS.]

I myself have the 18-105 f/3.5-5.6. I got a mint one used off eBay for $275 shipped which is a pretty good deal. The 18-200 is another good option if you want extra reach.

I don't know how well the D5300 does with higher ISO but I personally would invest in an external flash. I love my SB-600. I use it every time I shoot indoors.

You sound pretty happy with your experience with the 18-200 so I would recommend that which would leave money for an external flash and maybe even a little more left over for a 35mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.8.

 

[PaulWog]

VR (vibration reduction) is very useful for some shooters, and unnecessary for others. It's one of those features that I use 3/4 of the time on my 16-85mm VR and 70-300mm VR lenses. You really have to try out a VR lens and shoot in a variety of settings to get a feel for whether you want VR or not (I like to think the majority of recreational photographers really appreciate it).

The 18-200mm definitely has some compromises to it, but if you liked the lens and it fits your needs, then there's no reason not to go out and purchase it. The 16-85mm will offer the best sharpness and performance in its range compared to the 18-105mm, 18-140mm, and 18-200mm. However, a slow zoom lens (a zoom lens limited to a slow aperture) is foremost designed for convenience. If you need that 85mm-200mm range in one lens, then that likely will outweigh the sharpness gains you'll get out of the 16-85mm (which won't be astoundingly significant - but still it's a factor to consider... I bought the 16-85mm for my own purposes. I still see upsides and downsides to my decision). With that said, make your decision carefully and based really on what you expect out of the lens.

The 35mm 1.8G and 50mm 1.8G are no-brainer primes that are each worth the price. I think every person with a DSLR should own at least one prime lens.

 

[ruifo]

For travel, I am going with the new Sigma 18-250mm OS DG HSM Macro lens, with my D5200.
Several reviews pointed out it performs better than the Tamron 18-270mm (not sure myself, though).

 

[CaptainNapalm]

I loved my Nikkor 18-200 VR1 version, only reason I stopped using it is because I started shooting with a full frame camera. Contrary to what most say, I found the image quality of my 18-200 lens comparable to that of my 18-55 VR and 70-300 VR but then again maybe I ended up with a really good copy. Anyways, I would highly recommend it, it really is a great lens covering a large focal length thus eliminating frequently changing lenses.

 

[SCraig]

I would personally recommend against a prime lens for someone who is going to only have one lens for a while. For shooting indoors a 50mm is going to be too long unless the rooms are quite large whereas outside it is going to be too short. The "Zoom With Your Feet" philosophy is fine in some situations but it flat does not work in others. I think you are on the right track with a high-ratio zoom personally. A 16-85 would provide a lot of flexibility, an 18-200 yet more.

 

[Tailgunner]

I would personally recommend against a prime lens for someone who is going to only have one lens for a while. For shooting indoors a 50mm is going to be too long unless the rooms are quite large whereas outside it is going to be too short. The "Zoom With Your Feet" philosophy is fine in some situations but it flat does not work in others.

Yes sir, thats why I suggested the 17-55mm 2.8. The 16-85 would also work.

 

[SCraig]

Yes sir, thats why I suggested the 17-55mm 2.8. The 16-85 would also work.

Good recommendation in my opinion albeit a little bit short for most outdoor activities. I have a Sigma 17-70 that I really like but it is too short a lot of the time.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Why not look at a:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/872407-REG

I mean, I it's only going to be one lens for awhile...

 

[geokra111]

Why not look at a:

Nikon AF-S Nikkor DX 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Lens 2196 B&H

I mean, I it's only going to be one lens for awhile...

I was actually just thinking the same thing. It sounds like any performance compromises we would lose using an 18-200 instead of something like an 18-55 would be minimal (at least to our untrained eyes), so perhaps the greater flexibility of the 18-300 would be even better than the 18-200. I *was* thinking the 16-85 was the way to go, but there isn't much to be gained on the wide end (16 vs. 18).

 

[TheFantasticG]

Have time to rent it?

See if www.borrowlenses.com or www.lensrentals.com has it for rent so it really is what you're looking for.

 

[PaulWog]

I was actually just thinking the same thing. It sounds like any performance compromises we would lose using an 18-200 instead of something like an 18-55 would be minimal (at least to our untrained eyes), so perhaps the greater flexibility of the 18-300 would be even better than the 18-200. I *was* thinking the 16-85 was the way to go, but there isn't much to be gained on the wide end (16 vs. 18).

I think the 18-200mm (the most recent version by Nikon) really represents a lot of value for what it is. It definitely will outperform the 18-55mm kit lens (based on what I've seen come out of that lens, I think it's a tad bit worse than lackluster). I still think you should be picking up a prime lens alongside whatever zoom you get. Also, don't extend your thought out into "well maybe the 18-300 would be good": At a certain point, you are sacrificing too much performance. Also, the difference between 200mm and 300mm doesn't end up appearing to be that much on a crop sensor camera such as the D5300 (you can go out and test a lens that goes between those focal lengths, it's not an astounding difference).

 

[MeddlinG]

The "Zoom With Your Feet" philosophy is fine in some situations but it flat does not work in others..

The problem people like Ken Rockwell and others don't understand (or refuse to understand) is that it is not only about "zooming". Focal length heavily influences perspective, not just the size of the main subject (which you can affect with "zooming with feet, yes), but also the size of the objects in the background. Imagine taking portrait of someone in front of some majestic mountains. According to Rockwell and others, it doesn't matter if you use 70-200mm or 35mm, because the photo will be the same. What they fail to understand is that in one photo, the mountain will be small and boring. In the other the mountain will retain its majesty.

 

[Tailgunner]

tailgunner, I appreciate your comments about the f-stops. I think you probably have a valid point about the lower f-stops. If we were to go for a lower f-stop, could we still get a lens with a wide zoom range (such as 18-200mm)?

I honestly couldn't tell you, at least I don't think they do with Nikon brand lenses…maybe a 3rd party lens?

They generally break this zoom range into two separate lenses: 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8. Lower aperture lenses can be rather large and bulky. My 70-200mm 2.8 VR II for example is twice as long as my 18-200mm VR…talking non zoomed out, 2" longer than the 18-200 fully zoomed out. The 70-200mm 2.8 is 5mm wider in diameter than the 18-200mm VR. Just imagine how long or bulky a 18-200 would be if they made it with a 2.8 aperture.

 

[KmH]

[h=2]Good all-around lens[/h]

An oxymoron.

 

[geokra111]

Thanks for all of the help guys! We got some bad news that there was a problem with our order of the camera body, so we need to start over again from scratch.

Knowing what we know now, we are considering two options at this point:

1: purchase the camera with the 18-140mm lens package (about $1100 from B&H) or
2: purchase the camera body plus the 18-200mm lens (about $1400 from B&H)

Any thoughts on what's the better package? Knowing what we know now, the extra zoom (140-200) afforded by the more expensive lens is probably not worth $300, *UNLESS* there is a substantial difference in the quality technology of the two lenses. The only difference I can see is that the 200 has VR-II and the 140 just has VR.

Can anyone provide some guidance?

Thanks!

Geoff